Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) at the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC).
Methods
Systematic literature review of studies including AEOC patients undergoing SyLND versus selective lymph node dissection (SeLND) or no lymph node dissection (NoLND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and hospital stay.
Results
Nine retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1,660 patients: 827 (49.8%) SyLND, 490 (29.5%) SeLND, and 343 (20.7%) NoLND. The pooled estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were, respectively, 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.65–1.20; p=0.43) and 0.80 (95% CI=0.50–1.30; p=0.37). The pooled estimated odds ratios (ORs) for severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, and blood transfusions were, respectively, 1.83 (95% CI=1.19–2.82; p=0.006), 3.38 (95% CI=1.71–6.70; p<0.001), 7.23 (95% CI=3.40–15.36; p<0.0001), and 1.22 (95% CI=0.50–2.96; p=0.67).
Conclusion
Despite the heterogeneity in the study designs, SyLND after NACT failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in PFS and OS and resulted in a higher risk of severe postoperative complications.
Trial Registration
PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022303577
Keywords: Ovarian Cancer, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Cytoreductive Surgery, Lymphadenectomy, Survival
Synopsis
Systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) during interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival rates. The risk of postoperative complications was higher when SyLND was performed. The role of imaging for nodal evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains a matter of debate. Further high-quality evidence is required before definitively omitting SyLND during IDS.
INTRODUCTION
The cornerstone of the surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) is to achieve complete cytoreduction of all macroscopic peritoneal lesions with no gross residual disease (NGRD) [1,2,3]. The standard surgical staging for AEOC currently includes hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, peritoneal washing, and peritoneal biopsies [4,5]. In the past, pelvic and paraaortic systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) has been also performed as a staging procedure [6,7,8] for AEOC until in 2018 the LION trial [9] definitively put an end to a longstanding debate on the role of SyLND in the PDS setting, confirming the results from other randomized trials [10,11] that demonstrated only a prognostic role for SyLND without any therapeutic value.
The LION trial [9] demonstrated that pelvic and paraaortic SyLND in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) for AEOC and with radiologically and surgically negative lymph nodes (LNs) was not associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and resulted in a higher rate of postoperative complications. Nowadays, however, almost 70% of AEOC patients are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval cytoreductive surgery (IDS) [12,13], owing to the presence of unresectable widespread disease or poor performance status [14], with apparently similar oncological outcomes compared with PDS [15,16,17,18,19]. While recent robust data allow for omitting SyLND during PDS for AEOC patients without any suspicion of LN involvement [20,21,22,23,24,25], the evidence supporting the same assumption for IDS is limited. Patients submitted to NACT-IDS generally present with more extensive disease and thus may have an increased risk of occult lymphadenopathy in case of negative radiological and surgical assessment [26,27]. Furthermore, NACT may act as a game-changer leading to the negativization of initially positive LNs, which though are not totally chemoresponsive and may hide chemoresistant microscopic disease. Therefore, whether SyLND may still find a role in case of non-suspicious LNs after NACT remains unclear.
The present analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of SyLND in patients undergoing IDS for AEOC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Search strategy
We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis using a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42022303577) and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [28].
A search was performed up to January 31, 2022 by 2 authors (C.G., D.D.V.) independently within several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov) to ensure all relevant studies evaluating the role of SyLND during IDS for AEOC. The process of evidence acquisition combined the following keywords and their MESH terms: “advanced ovarian cancer,” “neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” “interval debulking surgery,” “lymphadenectomy,” “lymph node dissection.” Article abstracts, full text of articles and cross-referenced studies identified from retrieved articles were screened for pertinent information. Duplicate records were excluded.
2. Inclusion criteria and trial selection
Key criteria for inclusion were: 1) original studies published in English, in peer-reviewed journals; 2) advanced epithelial ovarian cancer; 3) IDS after NACT; 4) SyLND versus selective lymph node dissection (SeLND) or no lymph node dissection (NoLND). Exclusion criteria were: 1) editorials, review articles and conference abstracts; 2) PDS; 3) non-epithelial ovarian cancer; 4) early-stage ovarian cancer; 5) series where PDS and IDS patients were mixed and no separate results could be obtained.
The selected studies were comprehensively examined, and relevant data extracted for each paper were inputted to the spreadsheet. The information selected included: authors, year of publication, study design and setting, number of patients, period of enrollment, age, body mass index (BMI), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, histotype, grading, BRCA mutation, preoperative CA125 serum level, number of NACT cycles, clinical response to NACT, positive LNs on preoperative imaging assessment, residual tumor (RT), number of resected LNs, number of positive LNs, perioperative complications, follow-up, overall recurrence rate, site of recurrence (LNs, peritoneal or distant), PFS, and OS. The 2 authors (C.G., D.D.V.) carried out data extraction and quality assessment from all the retrieved studies based on full-text articles. Discrepancies between the investigators were resolved by consensus.
3. Quality assessment
All identified controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies were then classified qualitatively according to the guidelines published in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [29]. The Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for assessing the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions included in the meta-analysis [30].
4. Outcomes
Two groups of outcomes were considered to be meaningful and therefore addressed in the present analysis: survival and surgical outcomes.
Survival outcomes
The primary outcome was to evaluate the impact of SyLND on survival. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS. The PFS was defined as the time from surgery until progression of disease. The OS was defined as the time from surgery to death.
Surgical outcomes
The secondary outcome was to evaluate the impact of SyLND on perioperative outcomes in terms of:
- Severe postoperative complications: occurrence of severe complications (grade III–IV) according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [31];
- Lymphocele and lymphedema;
- Blood loss: changes from baseline in terms of hemoglobin level (g/dL);
- Blood transfusions: occurrence of perioperative transfusions of red cell concentrates (RCC);
- Operative time: duration of surgery;
- Hospital stay: length of postoperative hospital stay (days).
5. Statistical analysis
All analyses were carried out using RevMan software (Review Manager version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Hazard ratios (HRs) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). HRs from multivariate analyses (Cox regression model) were used to assess the endpoints (time-to-event outcomes). Dichotomous outcomes from each study were expressed as an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity among studies was reported with I2 statistics. A random-effect model was used at meta-analysis if any heterogeneity was detected, whereas a fixed-effect model was used if no heterogeneity was identified. We decided to examine publication bias with Egger’s test and funnel plots if the number of studies was 10 or above, since these analyses are underpowered otherwise.
RESULTS
1. Study selection
The study selection is illustrated in Fig. 1. A search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database resulted in 282 relevant articles and further search in the Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar databases yielded no additional articles. No additional eligible studies were retrieved by hand-searching bibliographies. Nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review, involving a total of 1,660 patients [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].
Fig. 1. PRISMA diagram.
NoLND, no lymph node dissection; PDS, primary debulking surgery; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; SeLND selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
2. Study and population characteristics
The characteristics of included studies are detailed in Table 1. All nine studies were retrospective [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. No randomized controlled trials were found. Six studies (66.7%) [33,35,36,38,39,40] were monocentric and 3 (33.3%) [32,34,37] were multicentric. The studies were published between 2012 and 2021, while the period of patient enrollment varied from 1996 and 2018 across the series. The risk of bias assessment for the included studies is detailed in the Table S1.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the studies included and clinical data.
| Author (yr) | Design | Period | Sample size | Age (yr), median (range) | p | BMI (kg/m2) | p | FIGO stage | p | Histotype | p | Grading | p | BRCA | p | PS | p | NACT cycles, median (range) | p | CA125 | p | Clinical response to NACT (RECIST) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fagotti et al., 2012 [32] | R, Mu | 2005–2010 | Total | 151 | 0.61 | NA | 0.408 | 0.19 | See histotype | NA | NA | 0.0001 | NA | 0.588 | ||||||||||
| SeLND | 101 | 62 (31–80) | III: 81 (80.2%) | HGSOC: 99 (98%) | 4 (3–9) | CR/PR: 79 (78.2%) | ||||||||||||||||||
| IV: 20 (19.8%) | Others: 2 (2%) | SD: 22 (21.8%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 50 | 63 (35–76) | III: 37 (74%) | HGSOC: 47 (94%) | 6 (6–10) | CR/PR: 41 (82%) | ||||||||||||||||||
| IV: 13 (36%) | Others: 3 (6%) | SD: 9 (18%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Iwase et al., 2015 [33] | R, Mo | 2000–2008 | Total | 124 | 58 (29–83) | NA | IIIB: 6 (4.8%) | Serous: 105 (84.6%) | NA | NA | NA | 6 (2–9) | Pre-NACT: 1,569.4 (13.5–24,821) | NA | ||||||||||
| NoLND | 38 | IIIC: 77 (62.1%) | Others: 19 (15.4%) | Post-NACT: 15.8 (2.3–1,965.1) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 86 | IV: 41 (33.1%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Schwartz et al., 2015 [34] | R, Mu | 1998–2012 | Total | 101 | 0.40 | 0.79 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.30 | ||||||||||||
| NoLND | 47 | ≤55: 14 (29.8%) | 25.2 (22.6–28.7) | III: 27 (57.4%) | Serous: 38 (80.9%) | 1–2: 12 (33.3%) | 5 (10.6%) | ECOG | 6 (4–6) | 0.15 | NA | CR: 6 (18.7%) | ||||||||||||
| 56–69: 22 (46.8%) | IV: 20 (42.6%) | Others: 9 (19.1%) | 3: 24 (66.7%) | 0–1: 22 (50%) | PR: 19 (59.4%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ≥71: 11 (23.4%) | NA: 11 | 2–4: 22 (50%) | SD: 7 (21.9%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 3 | NA: 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 54 | ≤55: 22 (40.8%) | 24.5 (22.4–27.3) | III: 43 (79.6%) | Serous: 43 (79.6%) | 1–2: 12 (25.6%) | 4 (7.4%) | ECOG | 5 (4–6) | NA | CR: 9 (33.3%) | |||||||||||||
| 56–69: 24 (44.4%) | IV: 11 (20.4%) | Others: 11 (20.4%) | 3: 31 (74.4%) | 0–1: 27 (50%) | PR: 16 (53.4%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ≥71: 11 (23.4%) | NA: 11 | 2–4: 25 (50%) | SD: 4 (13.3%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 2 | NA: 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Eoh et al., 2017 [35] | R, Mo | 2009–2015 | Total | 133 | 0.33 | NA | 0.2 | 0.523 | 0.89 | NA | 0.431 | 0.307 | 0.54 | NA | ||||||||||
| SeLND | 68 | 60.5 (38–79) | IIIC: 27 (39.7%) | Serous: 62 (91.2%) | 1: 4 (5.9%) | ASA | 3 (2–6) | Pre-NACT: 3,677.1 (6.2–20,685.7) | ||||||||||||||||
| IV: 41 (60.3%) | Others: 6 (8.8%) | 2: 11 (16.2%) | 1: 19 (27.9%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3: 53 (77.9%) | 2: 35 (51.5%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3: 14 (20.6%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 65 | 53.8 (27–75) | IIIC: 33 (50.8%) | Serous: 56 (86.2%) | 1: 4 (6.2%) | ASA | 3 (3–6) | Pre-NACT: 3,938.5 (141.7–30,000) | ||||||||||||||||
| IV: 32 (49.2%) | Others: 9 (13.8%) | 2: 14 (21.5%) | 1: 25 (38.5%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3: 47 (72.3%) | 2: 28 (43.1%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3: 12 (18.5%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Song and Gao, 2019 [36] | R, Mo | 1996–2016 | Total | 330 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.96 | 0.87 | NA | 0.43 | NA | 0.80 | ||||||||||
| NoLND | 67 | 56 (51–62) | 21.7 (20.2–24.2) | III: 52 (77.6%) | Serous: 54 (80.6%) | 1: 7 (10.4%) | 5 (22.7%) | 3 (2–3) | CR: 11 (16.4%) | |||||||||||||||
| IV: (15 (22.4%) | Others: 13 (19.4%) | 2–3: 60 (89.6%) | PR: 56 (83.6%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| SeLND (ref.) | 145 | 54 (50–61.5) | 22.3 (20.3–24.9) | III: 108 (75.5%) | Serous: 124 (85.5%) | 1: 17 (11.7%) | 14 (28.6%) | 3 (3–3) | CR: 27 (18.6%) | |||||||||||||||
| IV: 37 (25.5%) | Others: 21 (14.5%) | 2–3: 128 (88.3%) | PR: 118 (81.4%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 118 | 55.5 (51–61) | 21.9 (20.0–24.3) | III: 95 (80.5%) | Serous: 105 (89%) | 1: 13 (11%) | 10 (27.8%) | 3 (2–3) | CR: 24 (20.3%) | |||||||||||||||
| IV: 23 (19.5%) | Others: 13 (11%) | 2–3: 105 (89%) | PR: 94 (79.7%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bund et al., 2020 [37] | R, Mu | 2000–2017 | Total | 255 | <0.0001 | 0.63 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.36 | 0.08 | |||||||||||
| NoLND | 100 | 67.5 (31–83) | <25: 38 (49.4%) | III: 78 (78%) | Serous: 100 (100%) | 1–2: 10 (17.9%) | 2 (25%) | ASA | ≤3: 5 (5.1%) | Pre-NACT | CR: 5 (27.8%) | |||||||||||||
| 25–30: 27 (35%) | IV: 22 (22%) | 3: 46 (82.1%) | NA: 92 | 0–2: 54 (54%) | 4–6: 74 (76.3%) | ≤1,500: 58 (65.2%) | PR: 13 (72.2%) | |||||||||||||||||
| >30: 12 (15.6%) | NA: 44 | 3–4: 21 (21%) | ≥7: 18 (18.6%) | >1,500: 31 (34.8%) | NA: 82 | |||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 23 | NA: 25 | NA: 3 | NA: 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 155 | 59 (31–82) | <25: 70 (54.3%) | III: 127 (81.9%) | Serous: 155 (100%) | 1–2: 23 (19.3%) | 19 (58%) | ASA | ≤3: 25 (16.7%) | Pre-NACT | CR: 19 (52.8%) | |||||||||||||
| 25–30: 37 (28.7%) | IV: 28 (18.1%) | 3: 96 (80.7%) | NA: 122 | 0–2: 94 (60.6%) | 4–6: 107 (71.3% | ≤1,500: 102 (70.8%) | PR: 17 (47.2%) | |||||||||||||||||
| >30: 22 (17.1%) | NA: 36 | 3–4: 24 (15.5%) | ≥7: 18 (12%) | >1,500: 42 (29.2%) | NA: 119 | |||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 26 | NA: 37 | NA: 5 | NA: 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Lopes et al., 2021 [38] | R, Mo | 2008–2016 | Total | 60 | 0.03 | 0.58 | 0.64 | HGSOC | HGSOC | NA | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| NoLND | 21 | 61.5 (46–82) | 24.4 (20.1–34.9) | IIIC: 16 (76.2%) | ECOG 2: 9.5% | 6 | CA125 at diagnosis: 1,422 | CR: 3 (14.3%) | ||||||||||||||||
| IC: 5 (23.8%) | Post-NACT CA125: 19.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 39 | 55.7 (41–73) | 25.8 (17.6–42) | IIIC: 30 (76.9%) | ECOG 3: 7.7% | 6 | CR: 7 (17.9%) | |||||||||||||||||
| IV: 9 (23.1%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| He et al., 2021 [39] | R, Mo | 2000–2014 | Total | 303 | 0.36 | NA | 0.19 | 0.45 | 0.32 | NA | NA | NS | 0.46 | |||||||||||
| SeLND | 176 | 44.5 (23–75) | IIIB: 10 (5.7%) | Serous: 110 (62.5%) | 1: 4 (2.3%) | 2 (1–6) | Pre-NACT: 1,320.5 (13.4–47,422) | NA | ||||||||||||||||
| IIIC: 124 (70.5%) | Others: 66 (37.5%) | 2–3: 127 (72.2%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| IV: | NA: 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 127 | 53 (32–74) | IIIB: 11 (8.7%) | Serous: 77 (60.6%) | 1: 1 (0.7%) | 2 (1–6) | Pre-NACT: 1,233 (10.1–31,521) | |||||||||||||||||
| IIIC: 77 (60.6%) | Others: 50 (39.4%) | 2–3: 115 (90.6%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| IV: 39 (30.7%) | NA: 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benoit et al., 2021 [40] | R, Mo | 2005–2018 | Total | 203 | <0.001 | 0.57 | 0.30 | HGSOC | HGSOC | 0.43 | 0.06 | 0.34 | 0.28 | |||||||||||
| NoLND | 70 | 68.37±10.95 | 24.07±5.35 | III: 44 (62.9%) | 6 (8.6%) | ASA | 4.6±1.55 | Pre-NACT: 2,587±3,865 | NA | |||||||||||||||
| IV: 19 (27.1%) | 1–2: 40 (57.1%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 7 | 3–4: 12 (17.1%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 133 | 62.33±10.5 | 23.62±4.71 | III: 83 (62.4%) | 22 (16.5%) | ASA | 4.39±1.42 | Pre-NACT: 1,976±3,504 | ||||||||||||||||
| IV: 42 (31.6%) | 1–2: 76 (57.1%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 8 | 3–4: 12 (9%) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 45 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMI, body mass index; BRCA, BReast CAncer gene; CR, complete response; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HGSOC, high grade serous ovarian cancer; Mo, monocentric; Mu, multicentric; NA, not available; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; PR, partial response; PS, performance status; R, retrospective; RECIST, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; Ref., reference; SD, stable disease; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
Depending on the series, patients underwent different patterns of nodal surgery procedures: 1) systematic pelvic and para-aortic LN dissection (SyLND); 2) resection of bulky nodes or radiologically suspicious lymph nodes (SeLND); 3) no lymph node dissection (NoLND). Five studies compared SyLND to NoLND [33,34,37,38,40], three studies compared SyLND to SeLND [32,35,39], and one compared the 3 groups [36]. Of the 1,660 patients included, 827 (49.8%) underwent SyLND, 490 (29.5%) SeLND, and 343 (20.7%) NoLND. When the information was available, the extent of paraaortic lymph node dissection (LND) was performed up to the level of the inferior mesenteric artery in one study [36] and the left renal vein in three studies [32,35,38].
Regarding the demographic and preoperative clinical characteristics (Table 1), there were no statistically significant differences between the compared groups (SyLND vs. SeLND/NoLND), except for the following: 1) 3 studies [37,38,40] reported a lower age in the SyLND cohort; 2) Schwartz et al. [34] described more FIGO stage III and less stage IV in the SyLND group; 3) Bund et al. [37] reported less ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score 3-4 among SyLND patients; 4) Fagotti et al. [32] reported a higher number of NACT cycles while another study [37] a lower number in the SyLND group; (5) Bund et al. [37] described a higher complete response to NACT in SyLND patients. The vast majority (80%–100%) of patients across all studies had high grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOC) and underwent platinum-based NACT before IDS and platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. There were no significant differences in terms of treatment regimens and number of NACT cycles between compared groups across the studies.
The surgical data of the included studies are detailed in Table 2. The surgical approach during IDS was exclusively laparotomy in all studies except for the Lopes’ and Bund’s series. In particular, Lopes et al. reported that laparotomy was performed in 90% of SyLND patients and 95% of NoLND patients, while laparoscopy in 10% and 5%, respectively [38]. Bund et al. [37] reported significant differences in the surgical approach for IDS between SyLND and NoLND groups (p=0.01): the rates of laparoscopy, laparoconversion and laparotomy were 33%, 4%, and 63%, respectively, in the SyLND group, and 16%, 7%, and 77%, respectively, in the NoLND group. The ancillary surgical procedures performed during IDS (e.g., rectosigmoidectomy, right diaphragm stripping, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, etc.) were similar between compared groups across the series.
Table 2. Surgical data and oncological outcomes.
| Author | LND | Image (+) LNs | RT | p | No. of removed LNs, median (range) | p | Positive LNs | p | FU | Recurrence rate | p | Site of recurrence | PFS | p | OS | p | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-NACT | Post-NACT | LNs | Peritoneal | Distant | ||||||||||||||||||
| Fagotti et al. [32] | SeLND | NA | NA | 0: 81 (80.2%) | 0.79 | 4 (1–14) | 0.0001 | 33.3% | 0.708 | Mean: 35 (95% CI, 32–38) | 62.4% | 0.37 | 17.8% | p=0.56 | 28.8% | 0.70 | 7.9% | 0.67 | 2-yr PFS: 25% | 0.83 | 2-yr OS: 69% | 0.77 |
| <1: 20 (19.8%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 0: 41 (82%) | 38 (15–84) | 28% | Mean: 36 (95% CI, 31–41) | 70% | 24% | 30% | 6% | 2-yr PFS: 36% | 2-yr OS: 88% | ||||||||||||
| <1: 9 (18%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Iwase et al. [33] | NoLND | NA | NA | 0: 98 (79%) | 46 (19–96) | 39.5% | Median: 39.5 (5–142) | 80.5% | 29.6% | p=0.53 | 62.9% | NS | 14.8% | NA | 2-yr PFS: 26.1% | 0.89 | 5-yr OS: 19.1% | 0.62 | ||||
| <1: 15 (12.1%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | ≥1: 11 (8.9%) | 19.8% | 61.6% | 10.5% | 2-yr PFS: | 5-yr OS: | ||||||||||||||||
| 56.1% (LN−) | 62% (LN−) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 24.5% (LN+) | 26.2% (LN+) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Schwartz et al. [34] | NoLND | NA | NA | 0: 47 (100%) | NS | Pelvic: 11.5 (8–15.8) | 40.7% | Median: 34 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 9.7 | 0.79 | 36.3 | 0.42 | ||||||
| SyLND | 0: 54 (100%) | Paraaortic: 15.5 (8–23.8) | 10.4 | 33.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Eoh et al. [35] | SeLND | NA | 32 (47.1%) | 0: 25 (36.8%) | 0.76 | 10.5 (0–19) | <0.001 | 66.2% | 0.16 | NA | 80.9% | 0.73 | 45.5% | p=0.02 | 32.7% | p=0.04 | 22.1% | NS | 12 (3–45) | 0.74 | 28 (5–123) | 0.001 |
| <1: 43 (63.2%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 41 (63.1%) | 0: 22 (33.8%) | 27.7 (20–128) | 53.8% | 78.5% | 23.5% | 15.7% | 18.5% | 17 (1–88) | 37 (13–150) | ||||||||||||
| p=0.06 | <1: 43 (66.2%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Song and Gao [36] | NoLND | NA | 0 (inclusion criteria) | 0: 67 (100%) | NS | - | NA | - | 0.43 | 69 (IQR, 31.5–84) | 70.1% | NA | 31.9% | p=0.02 | NA | NA | 22 (IQR, 16–34) | 0.57 | 57 (IQR, 43–67) | 0.049 | ||
| SeLND | 0: 145 (100%) | 8 (IQR, 6–11) | 22.1% | 65 (IQR, 38–102) | 69.7% | 15.8% | 28 (IQR, 20.5–46) | 50 (IQR, 41–78) | ||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 0: 118 (100%) | 31 (IQR, 29–36) | 26.3% | 53 (IQR, 32–87) | 66.9% | 12.7% | 30.5 (IQR, 19–45) | 59 (IQR, 44–76) | ||||||||||||||
| Bund et al. [37] | NoLND | NA | NA | 0: 50 (50%) | <0.0001 | 28 (15 paraaortic, 13 pelvic) | 11% (13% paraaortic, 10% pelvic) | NA | NA | 15% | 0.67 | 44% | 0.2 | 41% | 0.76 | 16.6 (95% CI, 14.9–18.7) | 0.70 | 27.6 (95% CI, 20.7–36) | 0.48 | |||
| ≤0.25: 23 (23%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| >0.25: 27 (27%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 0: 137 (88.4%) | 22% | 61% | 34% | 18.3 (95% CI, 16.3–20.1) | 26.8 (95% CI, 21.6–36.4) | ||||||||||||||||
| ≤0.25: 9 (5.8%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| >0.25: 9 (5.8%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lopes et al. [38] | NoLND | 11 (57.9%) | 0 (inclusion criteria) | 0: 18 (85.7%) | 0.33 | 23 (8 paraaortic, 12 pelvic) | 30.8% | 39.7 (14.4–127.5) | 90.5% | 0.41 | 4.8% | NA | NA | NA | 8.3 (95% CI, 5.1–11.6) | 0.878 | 61.2 (95% CI, 21.4–101) | 0.93 | ||||
| <0.25: 3 (14.3%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 13 (33.3%) | 0: 37 (94.9%) | 49.3 (13.5–115.5) | 89.7% | 12.8% | 8.1 (95% CI, 6.2–10.1) | 56.7 (95% CI, 43.4–70.1) | |||||||||||||||
| p=0.08 | <0.25: 2 (5.1%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| He et al. [39] | SeLND | 82.2% | 36.6% | 0: 90 (51.1%) | NA | Pelvic: 20 (8–59) | 55.7% | 38.6 (1.7–177.9) | 44.9% | NA | 4.5% | p=0.94 | Overall: 44.9% | NA | 3-yr PFS (RT=0): 48.6% | 0.324 | 5-yr OS (RT=0): 55.2% | 0.22 | ||||
| <1: 32 (18.2%) | Paraaortic: 10 (8–24) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥1: 54 (30.7%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 0: 73 (57.5%) | 40.2% | 4.7% | Overall: 40.2% | 3-yr PFS (RT=0): 52.4% | 5-yr OS (RT=0): 64.5% | ||||||||||||||||
| <1: 37 (29.1%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥1: 17 (13.4%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benoit et al. [40] | NoLND | NA | NA | 0: 48 (68.6%) | <0.001 | 31.4±17 | 57.9% | 26 (5–103) | 62.8% | 1 | 38.6% | 0.68 | 45.7% | 0.77 | 27.1% | 0.23 | 2-yr PFS: 48.6% | 0.87 | 5-yr OS: 58.6% | 0.41 | ||
| ≤0.25: 5 (7.1%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| >0.25: 15 (21.4%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 0: 116 (87.2%) | 32 (4–120) | 65.4% | 34.6% | 48.9% | 18.8% | 2-yr PFS: 47.4% | 5-yr OS: 63.2% | ||||||||||||||
| ≤0.25: 15 (11.3%) | 42.5% (LN+) | 49.9% (LN+) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| >0.25: 1 (0.75%) | 60.7% (LN−) | 82.2% (LN−) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| NA: 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
IQR, interquartile range; LN, lymph node; LND, lymph node dissection; NA, not available; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; NA, not available; NS, not significant; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
No RT was achieved from 80% up to 100%, except for: 1) the Eoh’s series [35] and the He’s series [39], where the rate of complete cytoreduction was 35% and 54%, respectively; 2) the Bund’s series [37] and the Benoit’s series [40], where the NoLND group achieved 50% and 69%, respectively. Two studies [38,39] reported the percentage of suspicious LNs on initial imaging before NACT, ranging from 40% to 82% and 2 studies [35,39] after NACT, ranging from 37% and 55%. The median number of LNs removed ranged from 23 to 46 in SyLND groups and varied from 4 to 10 in SeLND groups. The percentage of positive LNs on pathological assessment ranged from 11% to 66%. The overall recurrence varied from 40.2% to 89.7% in the SyLND groups, 44.9% to 80.9% in the SeLND groups, and 62.8% to 90.5% in the NoLND. When the information was available, LN recurrence occurred in 4.7% to 23.5% in the SyLND groups, 4.5% to 45.5% in the SeLND groups, and 4.8% to 31.7% in the NoLND groups. Regarding the specific site of recurrence (LNs, peritoneal or distant), most studies reported no differences according to the type of LND performed. However, Eoh’s series [35] reported LN recurrences in 45.5% of SyLND cases compared with 23.5% in the SeLND group (p=0.02) and peritoneal metastases in 32.7% vs 15.7% (p=0.04), respectively. Moreover, Song et al. [36] described a significantly higher rate of LN metastasis in the NoLND group (31.9%) compared with SeLND (15.8%) and SyLND (12.7%) (p=0.02).
3. Outcomes
Survival outcomes
Survival outcomes in terms of PFS and OS are detailed in Table 2.
1) PFS
Six studies [34,35,36,37,38,40] provided PFS data. Three studies were excluded from the analysis: 1) He et al. [39] reported only a subgroup analysis of PFS according to the RT status; 2) Iwase et al. [33] reported a subgroup analysis of PFS according to the presence of LN metastasis; 3) Fagotti et al. [32] did not report the HR for PFS.
No statistically significant differences in terms of PFS were shown between cohorts who underwent SyLND and SeLND/NoLND (HR=0.88; 95% CI=0.65–1.20; p=0.43) (Fig. 2A). The heterogeneity for this comparison was I2=60% (95% CI=1.8%–83.7%).
Fig. 2. Forest plots. (A) Forest plot of comparison: PFS and (B) Forest plot of comparison: subgroup analysis of PFS according to NGRD.
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IV, interval variable; NGRD, no gross residual disease; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; PFS, progression-free survival; SE, standard error; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
The subgroup analysis of PFS data according to NGRD included two studies and revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of PFS between cohorts who underwent SyLND and SeLND/NoLND (HR=1.17; 95% CI=0.91–1.52; p=0.23) (Fig. 2B).
2) OS
Seven studies provided OS data [33–38,40]. Two studies were excluded from the analysis: 1) He et al. [39] reported only a subgroup analysis of OS according to the RT status; (2) Fagotti et al. [32] did not report the HR for OS.
No statistically significant differences in terms of OS were shown between patients who underwent SyLND and SeLND/NoLND (HR=0.80; 95% CI=0.50–1.30; p=0.37) (Fig. 3A). The heterogeneity for this comparison was I2=83% (95% CI=66.3%–91.4%).
Fig. 3. Forest plots. (A) Forest plot of comparison: OS and (B) Forest plot of comparison: subgroup analysis of OS according to NGRD.
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IV, interval variable; NGRD, no gross residual disease; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; OS, overall survival; SE, standard error; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
The subgroup analysis of OS data according to NGRD included two studies and revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of OS between cohorts who underwent SyLND and SeLND/NoLND (HR=1.33; 95% CI=0.92–1.91; p=0.13) (Fig. 3B).
Surgical outcomes
The perioperative surgical data of included studies are detailed in Table 3.
Table 3. Perioperative surgical complications.
| Author | LND | Operative time (min), median (range) | p | Blood loss (DHb g/dL), median (range) | p | Blood transfusions | p | Hospital stay (days), median (range) | p | Surgical complication | Lymphocele | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade I–II | Grade III–IV | ||||||||||||||
| Fagotti et al. [32] | SeLND | 210 (90–400) | 0.023 | 1.40 (0.01–6.20) | 0.0001 | 23 (22.8%) | 0.0001 | 9 (4–20) | 0.232 | 89 (88.2%) | p<0.001 | 12 (11.8%) | p=NS | 0.9% | NS |
| SyLND | 225 (125–390) | 3.25 (0.02–5.10) | 27 (54%) | 8 (4–23) | 41 (82%) | 9 (18%) | 26% | ||||||||
| Iwase et al. [33] | NoLND | 419 (185–611) | 1,291 (220–5,640) | 70.6% | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||||||
| SyLND | |||||||||||||||
| Schwartz et al. [34] | NoLND | 240 (177.5–295) | <0.001 | NA | 11 (33.3%) | 0.002 | 10 (8–15) | 0.67 | 28 (63.6%) | p=0.43 | 2 (4.6%) | p=0.43 | NA | ||
| NA: 14 | |||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 320 (270–370) | 33 (70.2%) | 10.5 (9.0–14.2) | 32 (62.7%) | 6 (11.8) | ||||||||||
| NA: 7 | |||||||||||||||
| Eoh et al. [35] | SeLND | 265 (108–900) | 0.27 | 1.0 (−2.1–3.4) | 0.19 | 41 (60.3%) | 0.29 | 11 (7–51) | 0.83 | ICU admission: 22 (32.4%) | p=0.08 | 13 (19.1%) | 0.31 | ||
| SyLND | 283 (104–735) | 1.0 (−3.0–4.4) | 33 (50.8%) | 10 (6–31) | ICU admission: 12 (18.5%) | 18 (7.2%) | |||||||||
| Song and Gao [36] | NoLND | NA | NA | NA | 7 (6–10) | 0.045 | 65 (97%) | p=0.718 | 2 (3%) | p=0.718 | - | <0.001 | |||
| SeLND | 7 (6–8.5) | 140 (96.6%) | 5 (3.4%) | 9 (6.2%) | |||||||||||
| SyLND | 7 (6–10) | 112 (94.9%) | 6 (5.1%) | 32 (27.1%) | |||||||||||
| Bund et al. [37] | NoLND | 242 (155–405) | <0.0001 | NA | 9 (60%) | 0.7 | NA | 10 (10.5%) | p=0.15 | 4 (4.2%) | p=0.15 | NA | |||
| NA: 85 | |||||||||||||||
| SyLND | 383 (170–660) | 16 (55.2%) | 29 (20%) | 9 (6.2%) | |||||||||||
| NA: 126 | |||||||||||||||
| Lopes et al. [38] | NoLND | 164 | <0.001 | NA | 3 (14%) | 0.85 | 3 | 0.02 | NA | 2 (9.5%) | p=0.80 | NA | |||
| SyLND | 299 | 6 (15%) | 5 | NA | 3 (7.5%) | ||||||||||
| He et al. [39] | SeLND | NA | NA | NA | NA | 10 (5.7%) | p=0.03 | 0 | NA | ||||||
| SyLND | 15 (11.8%) | 3 (1.8%) | |||||||||||||
| Benoit et al. [40] | NoLND | NA | NA | NA | NA | 9 (69.2%) | p=0.48 | 4 (30.8%) | p=0.48 | NA | |||||
| SyLND | 25 (59.5%) | 17 (40.5%) | |||||||||||||
ICU, intensive care unit; NA, not available; LND, lymph node dissection; NS, not significant; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
1) Severe postoperative complications
Seven studies [32,34,36,37,38,39,40] with a total of 1,336 patients (676 in the SyLND and 660 in the SeLND/NoLND group) reported the rate of severe postoperative complications. Overall, 104 (7.8%) patients experienced grade III–IV postoperative complications: a statistically significant increase in grade III–IV postoperative complications was shown in the SyLND group compared with SeLND/NoLND group. The pooled estimated OR was 1.83 (95% CI=1.19–2.82; p=0.006) (Fig. 4). The heterogeneity for this comparison was 0% (95% CI=0%–70.8%).
Fig. 4. Forest plot of comparison: grade III–IV postoperative complications.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; OR, odds ratio; SeLND, selective lymphadenectomy; SyLND, systematic lymphadenectomy.
2) Lymphocele
Four studies [32,35,36,39] with a total of 850 patients (360 in the SyLND and 490 in the SeLND/NoLND group) reported the rate of postoperative lymphocele. Overall, 97 (11.4%%) patients experienced lymphocele: a statistically significant increase was shown in the SyLND compared with SeLND/NoLND group. The pooled estimated OR was 3.38 (95% CI=1.71–6.70; p<0.001) (Fig. 5). The heterogeneity for this comparison was 43% (95% CI=0%–80.9%).
Fig. 5. Forest plot of comparison: lymphocele.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; OR, odds ratio; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
3) Lymphedema
Two studies [36,39] with a total of 566 patients (245 in the SyLND and 321 in the SeLND/NoLND group) reported the rate of postoperative lymphedema of the lower limbs. Overall, 49 (11.4%%) patients experienced lymphedema: 16.3% for the SyLND groups and 2.8% for the SeLND/NoLND group. The pooled estimated OR was 7.23 (95% CI=3.40–15.36; p<0.0001) (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. Forest plot of comparison: lymphedema.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; OR, odds ratio; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
4) Blood loss
Three studies [32,33,35] reported data about blood loss but none reported the mean value with standard deviation; therefore, meta-analysis was not feasible. Two studies reported the median blood loss comparing the SyLND and the SeLND/NoLND groups: one study [32] showed a statistically significant higher blood loss in SyLND patients compared with SeLND, while the other one not [35].
5) Blood transfusions
Six studies [32,33,34,35,37,38] reported data about blood transfusions. Data were incomplete in three of them [33,34,37]. The remaining three studies [32,35,38] showed no statistically significant difference in terms of blood transfusions between groups. The pooled estimated OR was 1.22 (95% CI=0.50–2.96; p=0.67) (Fig. 7). The heterogeneity for this comparison was 67% (95% CI=0%–90.5%).
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: blood transfusions.
CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; NoLND, no lymph node dissection; OR, odds ratio; SeLND, selective lymph node dissection; SyLND, systematic lymph node dissection.
6) Operative time
Six studies [32,33,34,35,37,38] reported data about operative time but none reported the mean value with standard deviation; therefore, meta-analysis was not feasible. Five studies reported the median operative time comparing the SyLND and the SeLND/NoLND groups: 4 studies [32,34,37,38] showed a statistically significant higher operative time in SyLND patients compared with SeLND, while one [35] reported no relevant difference.
7) Hospital stay
Five studies [32,33,35] reported data about the length of hospital stay but none reported the mean value with standard deviation; therefore, meta-analysis was not feasible. Two studies [36,38] showed a statistically significant higher length of hospital in SyLND patients compared with SeLND, while three [32,34,35] reported no relevant difference.
DISCUSSION
The present meta-analysis summarizes the highest-quality evidence available in the English-language gynecologic oncology literature on the prognostic and surgical impact of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
Cumulative results failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect of SyLND on survival rates, neither on OS nor PFS, while reporting a higher risk of postoperative complications for patients undergoing SyLND. Currently, international guidelines recommend performing only selective lymph node dissection in case of radiological or intraoperative suspicious nodal metastases [4,41]. This meta-analysis supports the current recommendations and does not provide any evidence of a prognostic advantage in performing SyLND as a routine procedure during IDS. In the absence of a clear survival benefit, preserving patients from the SyLND-related morbidity and potential delay in adjuvant chemotherapy is advisable [14,42,43]. Additionally, the lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be even more invasive and technically difficult as a result of the potential fibrotic reaction.
The rationale for pursuing the assessment of SyLND during IDS could be to evaluate the potential therapeutic benefit of removing microscopic nodal disease. Indeed, clinically negative LNs at the time of IDS might be either effectively negative or positive nodes at diagnosis which then became negative after NACT. In this scenario, the therapeutic role of SyLND during IDS could be theoretically related to the removal of occult and/or chemoresistant microscopic nodal disease after NACT. However, despite speculation about a potential prognostic role for nodal micrometastases, so far, no data have demonstrated an effective improvement in survival rates when performing SyLND in the course of IDS. On the contrary, the persistence of bulky nodes after NACT could be a proxy for chemoresistant nodal disease suggesting a potential benefit for selective lymph node dissection.
To complicate matters even further, the role of preoperative imaging for the evaluation of lymph node status after NACT is still a matter of debate. The radiologic evaluation of lymph nodes, which is already difficult in chemotherapy-naive patients, is even more challenging after chemotherapy. Indeed, lymph nodes radiologically interpreted as suspicious may actually be the result of a fibrotic or inflammatory response, while apparently negative lymph nodes may hide neoplastic foci. In the present meta-analysis, the rate of radiologically suspicious nodal metastases ranged from 40% to 82% before NACT [38,39] and from 37% to 55% after NACT [35,39]. Even in case of radiologically negative lymph nodes after NACT, there was still a rate of occult nodal micrometastases, ranging from 19% to 31% [35,36,38,39]. Conversely, only 22%–66% of radiologically suspicious nodes were histologically-proven positive [32,35,36].
The present meta-analysis has some limitations. First, all included studies were retrospective and the sample size was small in some cases. Second, the inclusion criteria, indications and extension of SyLND were heterogeneous across the studies, as well as the timing of the radiological nodal evaluation. Third, in more than half of the studies data were collected for a period of more than 10 years [34,36,37,39,40]. Finally, an additional potential limitation is the heterogeneity level that often remains undetected in small meta-analyses and that leads to poor pooled estimates [44]. However, in most of our meta-analysis heterogeneity was successfully modeled using random-effects meta-analysis methods.
In conclusion, SyLND during IDS appears to be not beneficial for preventing relapse or prolonging overall survival in AEOC patients. Due to the limited number of high-quality studies, a global patient assessment is mandatory to properly tailor the surgical strategy, especially when treating frail patients who are at higher risk for postoperative morbidity. Further evidence is warranted to confirm these results.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
- Conceptualization: C.G.
- Data curation: C.G., D.D.V.
- Formal analysis: C.G., P.I., B.G., T.F., P.G.
- Investigation: C.G.
- Methodology: C.G., D.D.V., B.G.
- Project administration: C.G., D.D.V.
- Resources: C.G., D.D.V.
- Supervision: C.G., P.I., B.G, D.D.V.
- Validation: C.G., P.I., B.G., M.L., D.D.V.
- Visualization: C.G., P.I., B.G., T.F., P.G.
- Writing - original draft: C.G.
- Writing - review & editing: P.I., B.G., T.F., P.G., B.P.P., M.L., D.D.V.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Quality assessment of the included studies (ROBINS-I tool)
References
- 1.Chang SJ, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:493–498. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–1259. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.du Bois A, Quinn M, Thigpen T, Vermorken J, Avall-Lundqvist E, Bookman M, et al. 2004 consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: final document of the 3rd International Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (GCIG OCCC 2004) Ann Oncol. 2005;16(Suppl 8):viii7–vii12. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, Ledermann J, McCluggage WG, McNeish I, et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:672–705. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Barroilhet L, Behbakht K, Berchuck A, et al. Ovarian cancer, version 2.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19:191–226. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chan JK, Urban R, Hu JM, Shin JY, Husain A, Teng NN, et al. The potential therapeutic role of lymph node resection in epithelial ovarian cancer: a study of 13918 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1817–1822. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Prognostic significance of systematic lymphadenectomy as part of primary debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:381–386. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pereira A, Pérez-Medina T, Magrina JF, Magtibay PM, Millan I, Iglesias E. The role of lymphadenectomy in node-positive epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:987–992. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318257b958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D, Reuss A, Vergote I, Marth C, et al. A randomized trial of lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced ovarian neoplasms. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:822–832. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Panici PB, Maggioni A, Hacker N, Landoni F, Ackermann S, Campagnutta E, et al. Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:560–566. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Maggioni A, Benedetti Panici P, Dell’Anna T, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Pellegrino A, et al. Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:699–704. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Luyckx M, Leblanc E, Filleron T, Morice P, Darai E, Classe JM, et al. Maximal cytoreduction in patients with FIGO stage IIIC to stage IV ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer in day-to-day practice: a Retrospective French Multicentric Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1337–1343. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31826a3559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tangjitgamol S, Manusirivithaya S, Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Bryant A. Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD006014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006014.pub6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Di Donato V, Caruso G, Bogani G, Giannini A, D’Oria O, Perniola G, et al. Preoperative frailty assessment in patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161:11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.12.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:943–953. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Onda T, Satoh T, Saito T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, Nakamura K, et al. Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Eur J Cancer. 2016;64:22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Chiantera V, et al. Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing primary surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with high tumour load (SCORPION trial): final analysis of peri-operative outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2016;59:22–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015;386:249–257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Reuss A, du Bois A, Harter P, Fotopoulou C, Sehouli J, Aletti G, et al. TRUST: Trial of Radical Upfront Surgical Therapy in advanced ovarian cancer (ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7) Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:1327–1331. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chiyoda T, Sakurai M, Satoh T, Nagase S, Mikami M, Katabuchi H, et al. Lymphadenectomy for primary ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;31:e67. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wang Y, Ren F, Song Z, Wang X, Zhang C, Ouyang L. Prognostic significance of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2020;10:86. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.du Bois A, Reuss A, Harter P, Pujade-Lauraine E, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J, et al. Potential role of lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of three prospectively randomized phase III multicenter trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1733–1739. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.3617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gao J, Yang X, Zhang Y. Systematic lymphadenectomy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of multiple epidemiology studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:49–60. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyu175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kim HS, Ju W, Jee BC, Kim YB, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Systematic lymphadenectomy for survival in epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:520–528. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181d6de1d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zhou J, Shan G, Chen Y. The effect of lymphadenectomy on survival and recurrence in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46:718–726. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM. The clinical significance of occult macroscopically positive retroperitoneal nodes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:143–149. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Berek JS. Lymph node-positive stage IIIC ovarian cancer: a separate entity? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(Suppl 2):S18–S20. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181bf8111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39:91–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2010.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) [Internet] London: Cochrane; 2022. [cited 2022 Feb 10]. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Fagotti A, De Iaco P, Fanfani F, Vizzielli G, Perelli F, Pozzati F, et al. Systematic pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer patients at the time of interval debulking surgery: a double-institution case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3522–3527. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2400-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Iwase H, Takada T, Iitsuka C, Nomura H, Abe A, Taniguchi T, et al. Clinical significance of systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer patients. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26:303–310. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Schwartz L, Schrot-Sanyan S, Brigand C, Baldauf JJ, Wattiez A, Akladios C. Impact of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:5503–5509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Eoh KJ, Yoon JW, Lee I, Lee JY, Kim S, Kim SW, et al. The efficacy of systematic lymph node dissection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer during interval debulking surgery performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:329–336. doi: 10.1002/jso.24669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Song N, Gao Y. Therapeutic value of selective lymphadenectomy in interval debulking surgery for stage IIIc and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:761–767. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bund V, Lecointre L, Velten M, Ouldamer L, Bendifallah S, Koskas M, et al. Impact of lymphadenectomy on survival of patients with serous advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a French national multicenter study (FRANCOGYN) J Clin Med. 2020;9:2427. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lopes A, Genta ML, da Costa Miranda V, Aranha A, Lopez RV, Piato DS, et al. Role of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in delayed debulking surgery after six neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles for high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:2737–2744. doi: 10.1111/jog.14838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.He M, Lai Y, Peng H, Tong C. Role of lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11:646135. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.646135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Benoit L, Koual M, Le Frère-Belda MA, Zerbib J, Fournier L, Nguyen-Xuan HT, et al. Risks and benefits of systematic lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery for advanced high grade serous ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48:275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian cancer (version 1.2022) [Internet] Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2022. [cited 2022 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Di Donato V, Kontopantelis E, Aletti G, Casorelli A, Piacenti I, Bogani G, et al. Trends in mortality after primary cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and metaregression of randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1688–1697. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5680-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Di Donato V, Di Pinto A, Giannini A, Caruso G, D’Oria O, Tomao F, et al. Modified fragility index and surgical complexity score are able to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality after cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161:4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kontopantelis E, Springate DA, Reeves D. A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8:e69930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Quality assessment of the included studies (ROBINS-I tool)